[Ninong]

"We don’t do politics in the Department of Homeland Security." -- Tom Ridge, Aug. 3, 2004.


Looks like we don't do security either:

Several senior Homeland Security officials told The Associated Press that Ridge has indicated in recent weeks he probably will resign after the election, even if Bush wins. They spoke only on condition of anonymity, citing the delicate nature of describing private conversations with their boss.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5556588/


Important announcement from the Department of Homeland Security: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../fiorefear.DTL


We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security (Cont'd):

Pakistan: U.S. blew undercover operation
Al-Qaida suspect was secretly cooperating with counterrorist sting

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - The al-Qaida suspect named by U.S. officials as the source of information that led to this week’s terrorist alerts was working undercover, Pakistani intelligence sources said Friday, putting an end to the sting operation and forcing Pakistan to hide the man in a secret location.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5626850/

[Ninong]

"Do you know what happened on this day 4 years ago? Well, whatever it was, the Department of Homeland Security just found out today." -- Jay Leno

[schrocat]

LOL!

I was just about to post a link to the blown cover story.
I don't know which is more sad. The stupidity in the act, or the stupidity required from the fanbase to dismiss it as an accident.
Foxnews won't report it yet...go figure.

I wonder if Bush shudders these days while passing the Presidential portrait of Carter?

[Ninong]

Even our allies think we screwed up on this one. From Newsweek (Aug. 16th. issue):

The more difficult question is whether the public revelations not only unduly frightened the American people but, in the long run, made them less safe. U.S. officials firmly deny it, but a knowledgeable British source argues that, by going public, Bush administration officials compromised an ongoing surveillance operation that ultimately could have uncovered more about Al Qaeda operations around the world.

[schrocat]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Even our allies think we screwed up on this one. From Newsweek (Aug. 16th. issue):

The more difficult question is whether the public revelations not only unduly frightened the American people but, in the long run, made them less safe. U.S. officials firmly deny it, but a knowledgeable British source argues that, by going public, Bush administration officials compromised an ongoing surveillance operation that ultimately could have uncovered more about Al Qaeda operations around the world.

I'm utterly baffled as to why this gets a pass.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by schrocat

I'm utterly baffled as to why this gets a pass.

Maybe it has to do with the Foxification of the other networks' news departments? Have you noticed in the past two or three years since Fox passed CNN in audience share that all the specialty news show "hosts" are trying to project a hard edged, opinionated on-air personality ala Bill O'Liely et al.? Except for Larry King, but he doesn't count anyway, never has. Everybody gets a pass on his show as long as they don't mention anything about how many wives he's had.

People are afraid to criticize anything the administration does in the conduct of the "war" on terror lest they be branded soft or unpatriotic. Or anti-American. Or un-Christian! Or showing a lack of support for our valiant fighting men and women.

[schrocat]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5913350

Now that's more like it...

We've "turned" so many corners with this administration.
Hopefully we're closing in on "turning the corner of stupidity".



"We did not of course publicly disclose his name" said Rice adding it was given "on background"...

...which sounds eeerily close to

"That depends on what your definition of IS...is"

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by schrocat

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5913350

Now that's more like it...

We've "turned" so many corners with this administration.
Hopefully we're closing in on "turning the corner of stupidity".

From that article:


Asked about the release of Khan's name, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said it was a hard line to draw between giving the public too much or too little information about terrorist threats. "We did not, of course, publicly disclose his name," Rice said, adding that it had been given "on background." She did not say when or by whom the name was first revealed.

Even the release of the extremely detailed information from the captured computer discs was enough to tip off Al-Qaida to the identify of the source. The only explanation I can think of for releasing details about espionage that was done four years ago is an attempt on the administration's part to show that they finally have specific information that is credible and actually exists, as opposed to all the pseudo information they have been handing out about Iraq's supposed WMDs that was based on claims made by Iraqi defectors paid by Chalabi (with our money, of course) and forged documents that duped the Brits into thinking someone was trying to buy enriched uranium in Africa. I have to admit, I was one of the ones duped by Colin Powell into thinking they had more than they actually did. We should have been suspicious when Hans Blix couldn't find any evidence of WMDs even after we told him where to look based on reports from informants supplied by Chalabi. The red flag should have been very visible when the administration suddenly called for an end to inspections because the longer they continued the less chance the administration would have of convincing anyone that WMDs actually existed.

I should have known better. I never once accepted Bush's explanation for why we had to go into Iraq immediately instead of waiting a little longer to gain the support of Germany, Russia, France and a few muslim countries, but I really thought the evidence was there or we wouldn't be using that as the excuse. Doh! Of course, it doesn't matter now anyway. We're there and we have to make the best of a bad situation.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by schrocat

"That depends on what your definition of IS...is"

Which reminds me, did you ever in your wildest dreams imagine that George W. Bush would turn out to be to the left of Bill Clinton in both domestic and foreign policy?

Clinton was balancing the budget (with huge surpluses) and paying down the national debt. Bush is racking up the largest deficits in history. He has managed to turn the largest surplus in history into the largest deficit in history. I'm sure our grandchildren will thank him for that.

Clinton reformed welfare and reduced the size of the federal government. Bush has expanded the size of the federal government and introduced welfare for the wealthy. Even Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are against total elimination of the estate tax. What was wrong with the Democrats' compromise that would have raised the exclusion to the first $5 million instead of the previous $1 million per person?

We knew that Bush would immediately roll back all the environmental regulations he could get his hands on and ask for drilling in our national parks and wildlife reserves (which he has tried to do but has been blocked) but who would have imagined that he would embark on all this "nation building claptrap?" That's what he used to call it -- nation building was supposed to be liberal claptrap. Suddenly he is this bleeding heart, ultra-liberal (compared to previous Republican administrations) who can no longer tolerate the repressive regimes in the Middle East. The same regimes we helped set up and have always supported. So now we are going to force democracy on people over there whether the want it or not. People of Iraq, resistance is futile. You will be liberated. People of Iran, you are next. People of Saudi Arabia, remain calm, your repressive monarchy has a very long term special relationship with our government and we wouldn't want to do anything to upset the apple cart.

Oh, for the good old days when the economy was booming, the budget was balanced, jobs were being created here instead of in India, China and Mexico, and the Republicans' major concern was whether the President was having a little too much fun in the oval office.

[schrocat]

Yep.
George Bush is a fiscal conservatives nightmare.

You forgot to mention this though...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...acy/index.html

"Bush opposes legacy addmissions"

...dear God what a liberal wiener!

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by schrocat

"Bush opposes legacy addmissions"

...dear God what a liberal wiener!

Easy for him to say now! That's the same as Clarence Thomas saying he opposes affirmative action! If it weren't for affirmative action we wouldn't have little Clarence to make fun of. What a joke he has turned out to be. At least he has enough sense to keep his mouth shut during oral arguments and let Scalia ask all the questions.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by schrocat

You forgot to mention this though...

"Bush opposes legacy addmissions"

And you forgot to mention the venue!

President Bush addresses a Washington conference of minority journalists on Friday.

Let's see him repeat that at the Bohemian Grove!

Does this mean he'll stop using his favorite laugh line in speeches before college student bodies? "To all you C students out there: You, too, can become president of the United States."



P.S. -- Come to think of it, with a little paraphrasing he could use the same line at an A.A. meeting, too!

[schrocat]

well USA today is slowly rubbing the sleep off its eyes....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...an-intel_x.htm

C'mon guys! freakin' investigate!!!!

This leak is possibly more traitorous than that "american taliban" dude we rolled up in afghanistan...
or the id leak of CIA operatives.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by schrocat

well USA today is slowly rubbing the sleep off its eyes....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...an-intel_x.htm

C'mon guys! freakin' investigate!!!!

This leak is possibly more traitorous than that "american taliban" dude we rolled up in afghanistan...
or the id leak of CIA operatives.

"We have checked. No Pakistani official made this intelligence leak," he said. -- Great response from Pakistan!

White House spokesman Scott McClellan cautioned Monday that information may be more limited about future raids against al-Qaeda suspects. -- Unless, of course, Bush is trailing by more than 5 points in the polls!

Khan led authorities to Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani — a Tanzanian with a $25 million American bounty on his head for his suspected involvement in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in east Africa — and the capture of about 20 other al-Qaeda suspects. The arrests also prompted a series of raids in Britain and uncovered past al-Qaeda surveillance in the United States. -- This guy was a real treasure trove of intel. Too bad the people in charge (Karl Rove & Dick Cheney) decided it was time to blow his cover.

[Ninong]

http://sfgate.com/columnists/fiore/

[Ninong]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...worldviews.DTL

[schrocat]

Originally Posted by Ninong

http://sfgate.com/columnists/fiore/

very nice!

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by schrocat

very nice!

You saw this other one that I posted earlier, right? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../fiorefear.DTL

And to think that that was posted three weeks BEFORE this latest politically motivated intelligence debacle!

[Ninong]

Maybe Tom Ridge was being truthful after all when he said there was no politics in the Department of Homeland Security. We now know that he was overruled by the mysterious senior White House advisors.

First we have Bush's former Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill, writing a book telling us that Saddam was topic "A" ten days after the inauguration -- eight months before September 11 -- and now we have former Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, telling us that he wants to "debunk the myth" that his agency was responsible for repeatedly raising the alert under the color-coded system he unveiled in 2002.

We know from O'Neill that Bush was ordering all of his cabinet secretaries from the very beginning of his first term to figure out a way to attack Iraq and we know from the documents that came to light within the past couple of weeks in the British election that Blair and Bush agreed in the summer of 2002 that they would invade Iraq. Now we know that Ridge often disagreed with "administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or 'high' risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled." "More often than not, we were the least inclined to raise it," Ridge told reporters yesterday.

The decision to invade Iraq was made back in 1992 by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their neo-con pals. They were just waiting for a pony to ride back into the White House.

The foreign policy decisions and most of the domestic policy decisions were made long before Bush's first inauguration. Everything that was done after he took up residence in the White House was designed to facilitate these preconceived political goals regardless of the consequences and regardless of the current situtation. This is an administration that did not let the facts get in the way of their preconceived manifest destiny.

It was one thing to read Paul O'Neill telling us that Bush was totally clueless in meetings and uninterested in details but now we have Tom Ridge telling us virtually the same thing: That the advice of cabinet secretaries based on the facts was ignored and overruled when it didn't fit in with political considerations. No wonder they love Condoleezza Rice and are pushing so hard for Bolton as our ambassador to the U.N. Loyalty is the only thing that matters in this administration.

Poor Tom Ridge. He spent too much time in the Marine Corps, unlike the real powers in the White House, Cheney and Rove. No wonder he just couldn't take it any more.

Semper Fi.

[schrocat]

Rove showing up on caller ID over and over again could prove very taxing...